Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
follow the facts. we do not share outside the justice department, outside the fbi the facts of ongoing investigations. we made the determination as we were going through the matter that there was not a threat to national security. >> let's jump right in and bring in our friday morning political power panel. we have jackie kucinich political reporter for "usa today", democratic strategist blake zeb and msnbc contributor robert trainum. great to have you all here. we just heard from congressman king earlier today saying the general was asked right off the top whether the affair had an impact on his testimony. he said no. they moved on. but are all indications then that the affair is now a side note and lawmakers are truly focused on what took place in benghazi and the intelligence they have now? >> this very minute, yeah. i think that's the case. will that remain the focus? i don't know. because there's a lot of questions still out there about petraeus and his relationship with his biographer as well as joe kelly in tampa. and general allen. i mean, there are a lot of moving parts here.
at the present. first of all, there's an fbi investigation ongoing and that will give us the definitive word on what transpired. putting together the best information we have today, the current assessment is that what happened in benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hoyers before in cairo. a copycat attack which were prompted of course by the video. >> senator, you said that two days before that, director petraeus said it was terrorism. why didn't ambassador rice call it terrorism two days later? >> because she could speak publicly only on unclassified speaking points. i have some concern with those speaking points. but let me correct one thing. >> right. but what are the concerns and why speak at all? in other words, why was there a reference to it being a terrorist attack taken out of the public talking points? >> that is something that we're going to find out. but it was. that's the point. now, with the allegation that the white house changed those talking points, that is false. there is only one thing that was changed, and i've checked into
serious situation. there's a lot of concern about the fact that the f.b.i. didn't come back for three weeks. the reason is when they had to go back they needed protection. they needed to make sure that their lives were not at risk again. and we had to rely in the beginning with a very unorganized government and security group who was working with us and that was the libyans themselves. >> can you explain rice's comments five days later? why that was still the line of spontaneous -- >> we talked some about susan rice. susan rice got a lot of the same information that we did. i'll make a comparison to colin powell. when colin powell went before the united nations, getting information from the administration on the facts. >> you said that within 24 hours -- [inaudible] this was five days later. >> i said they knew right away that there were terrorists involved in the operation. >> why wasn't that part -- >> wait, are you finished? what? give it to me. >> in other words, if he knew within 24 hours it was terrorist-related, how come five days later in the talking points for susan rice it s
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)